test tube full of blood
I think this actually happened a while back.
Let's say you are a well known and respected pastor or church leader. You have taken a stance against something because of your religious beliefs. A group comes to protest your views at work (the church). They are carrying signs and make loud noises. You go out with a few of your fellow workers and politely ask them to leave. They become hostile and one person pulls out a test tube full of blood. He says this is blood from a person dieing of AIDS and threatens to throw it at you.
Question: Can you draw your weapon on that person? Is he threatening your life?
shoot the test tube.... well at least try maybe... assault with a deadly weapon in my books.
IMO that is clearly a death threat - a person doing something like that would fully understand (whether or not it really had AIDS in it or not) that by making a threat like that, they were threatening to intentionally infect you with a disease that kills people. JMO
Remove yourself from the confrontation! Getting splashed with contaminated
blood isn't a death sentence like it use to be but why take the chance? I was taught in my ccw class to use force as last resort this case sounds anything but.
I say again,walk away.Simple assault doesn't sound like it life threating as I review the above thread.You can only escalate the power to match what you
are receiving during the confrontation so a vile of blood versus a pistol is not an
equal match of power to stop the confrontation.This is where a lot of ccw holders get in trouble as they tend to use excess force.
A protest group comes to my door? I'm not going outside...call 911, I think I'll be relatively safe in my own home for the wait.
Stay armed...stay inside...stay safe!
Originally Posted by Stetson
Where did this come from? Never heard that before and it doesnt sound right.
As a pastor, . . . I would fix my door so it locks when closed, . . . and would go out far enough to converse with them, . . . but still maintaining the door open.
I would be back inside at the first hint of anything more than verbal sparring, . . . on the phone to LEO, . . . and with my weapon very much available (yes, I do carry at my church).
If somehow I am not able to do the above, . . . and if we get to a situation where he has the blood, . . . threatens to throw it on me, . . . there is a real very good chance that there will be some lawyers sorting out the outcome.
No, in no uncertain terms would I stand there and allow him to throw it on me if I am armed. And yes, . . . I would not hesitate for a moment to neutralize his threat with 230 grain FMJ's.
May God bless,
I'd say no! Go back inside and call the Police! :yup:
If you're splashed with blood, wash immediately and save some of the blood for testing.
A gun IS NOT the answer to everything. Threat to human life or severe bodily harm must be IMMINENT for deadly force to be used. :wink:
I firmly consider this a deadly threat.
If even a microdot of AIDS infected blood, or blood infected with other deadly disease gets into your eye; the deed is done. Your likelyhood of infection is exceedingly high if that infected blood gets the smallest bit in your eye! Or, into your mouth or on a crack in your lips or skin.
Back up; get your glasses on if you can or don't already have them on and pull the weapon and announce your fear of his deadly assault and warn him to put down the deadly blood and back away. Meanwhile be backing up and if he moves to throw or splash... he should be effectively stopped before he can throw or splash your eyes or skin.
No, it's not true, use of force is regulated by the assailants ability, opportunity and your perception of his intent (your feeling of jeopardy). It doesn't matter what sort of weapon (if any) he has, if you feel your life is being threatened you should take action.. Then it's up to the courts to decide if it's a disputed shoot.
Originally Posted by TyC
In this case I don't think I'd want to shoot and I don't think I'd be there in the first place (kind of like answering the door when you have no idea who's knocking, except this time you actually KNOW they're hostile, why go out there?)
Not so - even a stick with a needle contaminated with infected blood has a small chance of infection (~0.3%).
Originally Posted by Mr Jody Hudson
An exposure of the mucosa carries an even lower risk (~0.1%).
It is your responsibility to walk away if possibile. Some people have a problem putting pride aside but it is your responsibilty if you have a CCP. If you had that opertunity, your pride got the best of you and you used deadly force, you are more then likely going to jail and won't be the first.
I'd be more worried about Hep B/C exposure..... and I wouldn't want a vial of blood thrown at me for any reason, but blood exposure to the eyes is on the lower end of the risk scale as far as HIV transmission routes go.
I'd leave the area and go back inside. If it did get thrown at me I'd just turn around so it didn't get in my face, as long as you don't have any cuts/abrasions, etc... then just getting blood on your skin is not a problem. I'd think my chances are better by doing that or just leaving then taking the chance of not having the legal system share my opinion that my life was in imminent danger.
Agree with the above..... beat me to it.
Originally Posted by MattLarson
The attacker is making threats of death, pointedly appealing to your fears of death as a result of his actions. I believe it would be seen as lawful self-defense against something so direct. I view this as equivalent to someone pulling a fake firearm during a robbery and using the fear of death as leverage to get what he wants from the store owner/clerk. Now, someone merely bleeding on you is one thing. But someone making direct, violent threats and stating that death is what you've got coming? That's specific, and that means (so far as I understand the laws in my state) I have legitimate cause to fear he's being truthful at waving death in his hands and directing it at me.
Originally Posted by exactlymypoint
I don't care one whit about the "sinful" nature of the AIDS reference. It's the pointed use of death as leverage in the actions of the attacker. Some may distinguish between a languishing death and an immediate death via laceration or hole punch, but this attacker is using the death as leverage as the lynchpin of his actions. To me, that has crossed the line.
If test tubes aren't your thing, consider a syringe. Or, if not AIDS, then consider Ebola or Anthrax or any sort of potent acid (a la hydrocholoric or sulfuric). The reality is, liquids delivered to a person can be anything, if claimed to hold death for you. If someone's getting violent, attacks and basing the threat on claims that death is held in that solution in his hand, it should not matter whether that solution is held in a test tube, a syringe, or anything else.
Of course, it might be perceived as others to be a gray area. You'd be on tap to justify your actions, as always. You'd have to articulate the fear, the reasonableness, the justification you saw. If concerned check with your attorney where the dividing lines exist in the laws that apply to you.